Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: plugin precedence order, per-plugin undo semantics (Royally for Wordfence/GuardPress, Kadence itself), the human approval gate, permanence of blocks once applied, and refusal conditions. This resolves the apparent tension between the tool's name and destructiveHint=false by making the preview-only nature explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries real information. It is somewhat dense and run-on, with nested parentheticals that make the plugin-order/undo mapping harder to parse than it needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description covers the return shape (per-site plugin decision, undoability, sites lacking plugins, approve_url) and the approval deadline semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description restates ip format, optional reason, and site_ids default ('every connected site' vs the schema's 'every eligible site' – minor wording drift) but adds no syntax, limits, or format detail beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and scope: it *previews* blocking one IP across chosen sites, per security plugin (Wordfence, GuardPress, Kadence Security), and explicitly notes nothing changes until a human approves. An agent can distinguish this preview behavior from an actual block operation without reading the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context: it returns an approve_url and a person reviews and applies the block in Royally before approve_before. It also names fleet__undo as the reversal path and states edge cases (allowlisted addresses refused, GuardPress refuses the site's own address). No explicit 'use X instead if you want an immediate block' routing, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.